The singular point is that the instant check works smashingly well in keeping the 'criminal' portion of the 'shouldnt have firearms' from such firearms. And the 'criminal' prong is aided in that in order to have a conviction, due process must be served.

First, if the program could include the 'mental health' aspect in the comprehensive fashion that criminal records are served up, there would be no reason for any more than the 'minute or so' check that is somewhat sneered at in one in the article.

But also, the issue of due process becomes much more important for 'mental health' exclusion. And *that* is something else that is blithely ignored.

Take the just most recent one. He had been reported as suicidal by his mother, and the cops swooped in and confiscated his firearms at the time. The authorities *could not* show the requisite burden of proof to bar him completely and ad infinitum. That sucks. But, wholly in accordance with our concept of justice, the state, and burden of proof. And *that* DOESNT suck.

We have decided, for the most part, as a society that the legal bar for gun ownership in a criminal sense is a felony. Doesnt matter if the felony is armed robbery, or tax evasion. That cuts heavily against the tax evader --- that conviction on tax evasion precludes gun ownership.

Given that, what is the requisite bar for mental health issues? What level of proof should be accorded to bar a fundamental right?

It is tiny things like that that NEVER enter into the collective consciousness of a progressive on this -- mainly due to their overall blindness at the hatred of guns. But funny enough, they go to the mattresses over those tiny issues when it comes to abortion --- criminy, with an abortion you can be stark ravers, seeing purple flying hippos and talking through radio receivers implanted in your skull to handlers at the CIA, and the progressive will fight for the death for the right of *that* person to obtain an abortion, interestingly enough....

So, do we bar the guy that was on anti-depressants for 8 months 20 years ago? Just because in 20/20 hindsight that the *last* guy failed the redflag system, the progressives seem to champion eleventy thirteen wait days...

The singular fact is that the authorities *couldnt* meet the burden of proof in the last issue. Seems to me that 'not meeting the burden of proof' is somewhat important. But for some, their attitude is apparently 'fk the burden of proof, snatch em up at the slightest cause' coupled with 'lets put a massive wait into the system'.

Great, do you *really* think a 28 day wait is going to curtail someone from deciding to get a gun and go after it? This last one, I dont think even a 6 mos. wait wouldve altered that outcome. And, as stated before 'your side' will then be calling for a 9 mos., then a 2 year, then a 5 year waiting period. Followed insatiably by repeal of licensing in favor of a ban.

(04-26-2021 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='17399344' dateline='1619455287']

Exactly why I keep asking how the currently proposed "common sense" gun laws would have alleviated the perceived problem. At least I do them the courtesy of answering their questions.

For the 3rd or 4th time I answered your question to the best of my ability. I didn't have the time to go back and research the details of the recent shootings to which you had referred.

*edit* If you think these laws wouldn't do much do you have an explanation as to why Canada has such lower rates of gun violence than the US?

All I have asked is for you to tell me the post number.

I already did!

Wouldn't it be easier to type in a 2 or 3 digit number?

Dude! That's exactly what I did!!!!!

(04-26-2021 02:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='17399344' dateline='1619455287']

Exactly why I keep asking how the currently proposed "common sense" gun laws would have alleviated the perceived problem. At least I do them the courtesy of answering their questions.

For the 3rd or 4th time I answered your question to the best of my ability. I didn't have the time to go back and research the details of the recent shootings to which you had referred.

*edit* If you think these laws wouldn't do much do you have an explanation as to why Canada has such lower rates of gun violence than the US?

All I have asked is for you to tell me the post number.

I already did!

Wouldn't it be easier to type in a 2 or 3 digit number?

Dude! That's exactly what I did!!!!!

Guess I missed it. Can you give it again?

(04-26-2021 02:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  For the 3rd or 4th time I answered your question to the best of my ability. I didn't have the time to go back and research the details of the recent shootings to which you had referred.

*edit* If you think these laws wouldn't do much do you have an explanation as to why Canada has such lower rates of gun violence than the US?

All I have asked is for you to tell me the post number.

I already did!

Wouldn't it be easier to type in a 2 or 3 digit number?

Dude! That's exactly what I did!!!!!

Guess I missed it. Can you give it again?

Scroll back a few pages on this thread. I'm sure it's there.

(04-26-2021 02:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  All I have asked is for you to tell me the post number.

I already did!

Wouldn't it be easier to type in a 2 or 3 digit number?

Dude! That's exactly what I did!!!!!

Guess I missed it. Can you give it again?

Scroll back a few pages on this thread. I'm sure it's there.

Too difficult to either give me a post # or a recap?

I know I am retired, and you are a busy businessman, but that does not mean I have nothing better to do with my time than scrolling back through hundreds of posts when all you have to do is say Post # XY.

I guess we can just agree that you responded to my questions, and your response was so unimpressive I promptly forgot it.

(04-26-2021 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I already did!

Wouldn't it be easier to type in a 2 or 3 digit number?

Dude! That's exactly what I did!!!!!

Guess I missed it. Can you give it again?

Scroll back a few pages on this thread. I'm sure it's there.

Too difficult to either give me a post # or a recap?

I know I am retired, and you are a busy businessman, but that does not mean I have nothing better to do with my time than scrolling back through hundreds of posts when all you have to do is say Post # XY.

I guess we can just agree that you responded to my questions, and your response was so unimpressive I promptly forgot it.

I can't guarantee an impressive response but I can guarantee that you can scroll back a few pages in this thread just as easily as I can. One of us has to do it to get you the information. Might as well be you if you care (I don't blame you if you don't care but you keep whining about the issue).

(04-26-2021 12:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree with Tanq on this one.

If we weren't talking about a fundamental right, all sorts of things make more sense... but the first words of the second amendment, AND the preamble to the BOR (of which the 2nd is a key element) BOTH speak to the idea of providing assurances to the people and the states that the feds will not become overly restrictive. These are KEY elements... and its not about being able to 'fight them off' in an armed conflict against the government per-se... but mostly about being able to feed or defend yourself against animals and criminals.

People who live in close quarters like in NYC, especially laws about unlawful discharge of weapons makes total sense. It's almost impossible to shoot a gun in an apartment and not put someone else in danger... but in lots of places in this country, or even in the state of NY, the risk of accident is close to zero.

The removal of the right to bear arms to lawful citizens in an effort to curtail unlawful citizens is wrong-headed. The focus needs to be on rules that directly impact unlawful citizens (or actions).

Exactly why I keep asking how the currently proposed "common sense" gun laws would have alleviated the perceived problem. At least I do them the courtesy of answering their questions.

For the 3rd or 4th time I answered your question to the best of my ability. I didn't have the time to go back and research the details of the recent shootings to which you had referred.

*edit* If you think these laws wouldn't do much do you have an explanation as to why Canada has such lower rates of gun violence than the US?

Perhaps if you didnt keep sidestepping the issues of due process and fundamental rights your insistence on knowing the difference would harken a tad better.

Please detail how the Canadian system is at all functional with the US concept of due process, fundamental rights, and the burden of proof for 'mental prohibition'? I will tell you flatly that I know for a fact that the Canadian system has far fewer protections than the United States in those regards.

So, I guess your answer in light of your continued sidestepping those issues and your insistence of an answer to the differences in Canadian numbers and the US can be summed up as: '93 doesnt give a rat's ass about due process, fundamental Constitutional rights, and burden of proof for firearms, because 93 WANTS to get rid of firearms no matter what.' Is that correct?

If not, perhaps at least a teeny tiny attempt to respond.

This is why it is fun talking about those issues with progressives. When they are for an issue (like abortion) they wave the flag grandly about the above; when they dont like an issue they have to find some way to avoid talking about those issues since they, for the most part, dont give a **** about those issues and protecting fundamental rights they oppose.

(04-26-2021 03:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree with Tanq on this one.

If we weren't talking about a fundamental right, all sorts of things make more sense... but the first words of the second amendment, AND the preamble to the BOR (of which the 2nd is a key element) BOTH speak to the idea of providing assurances to the people and the states that the feds will not become overly restrictive. These are KEY elements... and its not about being able to 'fight them off' in an armed conflict against the government per-se... but mostly about being able to feed or defend yourself against animals and criminals.

People who live in close quarters like in NYC, especially laws about unlawful discharge of weapons makes total sense. It's almost impossible to shoot a gun in an apartment and not put someone else in danger... but in lots of places in this country, or even in the state of NY, the risk of accident is close to zero.

The removal of the right to bear arms to lawful citizens in an effort to curtail unlawful citizens is wrong-headed. The focus needs to be on rules that directly impact unlawful citizens (or actions).

Exactly why I keep asking how the currently proposed "common sense" gun laws would have alleviated the perceived problem. At least I do them the courtesy of answering their questions.

For the 3rd or 4th time I answered your question to the best of my ability. I didn't have the time to go back and research the details of the recent shootings to which you had referred.

*edit* If you think these laws wouldn't do much do you have an explanation as to why Canada has such lower rates of gun violence than the US?

Perhaps if you didnt keep sidestepping the issues of due process and fundamental rights your insistence on knowing the difference would harken a tad better.

Please detail how the Canadian system is at all functional with the US concept of due process, fundamental rights, and the burden of proof for 'mental prohibition'? I will tell you flatly that I know for a fact that the Canadian system has far fewer protections than the United States in those regards.

Here's a shocker... I don't know the details when it comes to these issues when you compare the Canadian/American systems. That's why I asked the question.

It's not like I came out and said "Look at Canada... these laws are spectacular and we need to enact them immediately!" I posted an article and I said "What do you guys think of these laws?"

I'm trying to have a discussion and you act as if I'm infinitely more strident that I am.

Quote:So, I guess your answer in light of your continued sidestepping those issues and your insistence of an answer to the differences in Canadian numbers and the US can be summed up as: '93 doesnt give a rat's ass about due process, fundamental Constitutional rights, and burden of proof for firearms, because 93 WANTS to get rid of firearms no matter what.' Is that correct?

Sure, dude. Whatever you want.

Quote:If not, perhaps at least a teeny tiny attempt to respond.

This is why it is fun talking about those issues with progressives. When they are for an issue (like abortion) they wave the flag grandly about the above; when they dont like an issue they have to find some way to avoid talking about those issues since they, for the most part, dont give a **** about those issues and protecting fundamental rights they oppose.

LOL. That's definitely me. You got me. Always waving that abortion flag grandly.

(04-26-2021 03:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 03:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree with Tanq on this one.

If we weren't talking about a fundamental right, all sorts of things make more sense... but the first words of the second amendment, AND the preamble to the BOR (of which the 2nd is a key element) BOTH speak to the idea of providing assurances to the people and the states that the feds will not become overly restrictive. These are KEY elements... and its not about being able to 'fight them off' in an armed conflict against the government per-se... but mostly about being able to feed or defend yourself against animals and criminals.

People who live in close quarters like in NYC, especially laws about unlawful discharge of weapons makes total sense. It's almost impossible to shoot a gun in an apartment and not put someone else in danger... but in lots of places in this country, or even in the state of NY, the risk of accident is close to zero.

The removal of the right to bear arms to lawful citizens in an effort to curtail unlawful citizens is wrong-headed. The focus needs to be on rules that directly impact unlawful citizens (or actions).

Exactly why I keep asking how the currently proposed "common sense" gun laws would have alleviated the perceived problem. At least I do them the courtesy of answering their questions.

For the 3rd or 4th time I answered your question to the best of my ability. I didn't have the time to go back and research the details of the recent shootings to which you had referred.

*edit* If you think these laws wouldn't do much do you have an explanation as to why Canada has such lower rates of gun violence than the US?

Perhaps if you didnt keep sidestepping the issues of due process and fundamental rights your insistence on knowing the difference would harken a tad better.

Please detail how the Canadian system is at all functional with the US concept of due process, fundamental rights, and the burden of proof for 'mental prohibition'? I will tell you flatly that I know for a fact that the Canadian system has far fewer protections than the United States in those regards.

Here's a shocker... I don't know the details when it comes to these issues when you compare the Canadian/American systems. That's why I asked the question.

It's not like I came out and said "Look at Canada... these laws are spectacular and we need to enact them immediately!" I posted an article and I said "What do you guys think of these laws?"

I'm trying to have a discussion and you act as if I'm infinitely more strident that I am.

Quote:So, I guess your answer in light of your continued sidestepping those issues and your insistence of an answer to the differences in Canadian numbers and the US can be summed up as: '93 doesnt give a rat's ass about due process, fundamental Constitutional rights, and burden of proof for firearms, because 93 WANTS to get rid of firearms no matter what.' Is that correct?

Sure, dude. Whatever you want.

Quote:If not, perhaps at least a teeny tiny attempt to respond.

This is why it is fun talking about those issues with progressives. When they are for an issue (like abortion) they wave the flag grandly about the above; when they dont like an issue they have to find some way to avoid talking about those issues since they, for the most part, dont give a **** about those issues and protecting fundamental rights they oppose.

LOL. That's definitely me. You got me. Always waving that abortion flag grandly.

And again, zero substantive response. Awesome.

You put together 3 sub-responses, all of which failed to address any substantive issue. <slow clap>

Here is one other attempt to get you to do that:

Quote:If not, perhaps at least a teeny tiny attempt to respond.

Lets add the word 'substantively' before the end period to make it crystal clear for you.

(04-26-2021 02:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Dude! That's exactly what I did!!!!!

Guess I missed it. Can you give it again?

Scroll back a few pages on this thread. I'm sure it's there.

Too difficult to either give me a post # or a recap?

I know I am retired, and you are a busy businessman, but that does not mean I have nothing better to do with my time than scrolling back through hundreds of posts when all you have to do is say Post # XY.

I guess we can just agree that you responded to my questions, and your response was so unimpressive I promptly forgot it.

I can't guarantee an impressive response but I can guarantee that you can scroll back a few pages in this thread just as easily as I can. One of us has to do it to get you the information. Might as well be you if you care (I don't blame you if you don't care but you keep whining about the issue).

Ask a civil question, get smack for an answer. whining, really? It is your side, the anti-Constitutionalists, who declare we need these "common sense" controls without a shred of proof that that they will accomplish anything other than take another step to abolishing a constitutional right. I thought I would ask some of the more sensible leftists (the ones here) why they thought these would do something different. Big mistake.

I guess my question is how can someone who readily admits that he/she knows relatively little about guns form a useful opinion about what are "common sense" gun controls. Shouldn't someone have reasonable knowledge of the subject matter before opining on what constitutes "common sense"?

three reasonable police reforms

First, I strongly prefer the word "reasonable" over the emotionally charged but vague "common sense".


#1 I support. #2 and #3 deserve to be looked at.

Interesting that they mention Scott's 2020 bill to reform the police that was stalled by Democrats using the filibuster. Guess they preferred more people die rather than Trump get credit.

(04-27-2021 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  three reasonable police reforms

First, I strongly prefer the word "reasonable" over the emotionally charged but vague "common sense".


#1 I support. #2 and #3 deserve to be looked at.

Interesting that they mention Scott's 2020 bill to reform the police that was stalled by Democrats using the filibuster. Guess they preferred more people die rather than Trump get credit.

Wow... feeling hyperbolic this AM, OO? Maybe they simply didn't like the bill.
Apparently at least one Republican agreed...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/879082580...d-training

Quote:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sounded similar criticism. "The Senate proposal of studies and reporting without transparency and accountability is inadequate," she said in a statement. "The Senate's so-called Justice Act is not action."

Quote:congressional Democrats have already called the GOP plan a "watered-down" approach, arguing that any reform bill needs to address the issue of qualified immunity — the legal protection for police officers that forecloses victims' ability to sue.

Scott acknowledged that the issue of qualified immunity is one where his bill and the Democrats' plan are far apart but said he was open to discussing it.

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., perhaps the lone Republican to support adjusting qualified immunity, says he is planning to offer his own legislation on the topic or may seek to amend Scott's, which he co-sponsored.

"I just think it's important — it's a watershed moment, we ought to do more than window-dress the issue," he said.

(04-27-2021 09:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  three reasonable police reforms

First, I strongly prefer the word "reasonable" over the emotionally charged but vague "common sense".


#1 I support. #2 and #3 deserve to be looked at.

Interesting that they mention Scott's 2020 bill to reform the police that was stalled by Democrats using the filibuster. Guess they preferred more people die rather than Trump get credit.

Wow... feeling hyperbolic this AM, OO? Maybe they simply didn't like the bill.
Apparently at least one Republican agreed...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/879082580...d-training

Quote:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sounded similar criticism. "The Senate proposal of studies and reporting without transparency and accountability is inadequate," she said in a statement. "The Senate's so-called Justice Act is not action."

Quote:congressional Democrats have already called the GOP plan a "watered-down" approach, arguing that any reform bill needs to address the issue of qualified immunity — the legal protection for police officers that forecloses victims' ability to sue.

Scott acknowledged that the issue of qualified immunity is one where his bill and the Democrats' plan are far apart but said he was open to discussing it.

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., perhaps the lone Republican to support adjusting qualified immunity, says he is planning to offer his own legislation on the topic or may seek to amend Scott's, which he co-sponsored.

"I just think it's important — it's a watershed moment, we ought to do more than window-dress the issue," he said.

Just the facts, ma'am.

At least there is diversity of thought in the GOP.

Since you often claim ignorance of the topic as a shield, here are some facts

What Democrats should be apologizing for was their shameful vote on the Senate floor Wednesday to kill Scott’s legislation — and with it any chance of passing police reform this year. Democrats knew exactly what they were doing. As Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), one of three members of the Democratic caucus who voted to advance the Scott bill, explained, “voting against it will end the discussion of this subject in the Senate for the foreseeable future, and leave us with nothing to show for all the energy and passion that has brought this issue to the forefront of public consciousness.”

He’s right. If Democrats cared about getting something done, they would have allowed the Senate to move forward and sought to amend Scott’s bill on the floor. There was plenty of basis for compromise. Scott’s legislation had already incorporated a number of Democratic proposals, including: making lynching a federal hate crime, creating a national policing commission to conduct a review of the U.S. criminal justice system; collecting data on use of force by police; barring the use of chokeholds by federal officers and withholding federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies that do not similarly bar them; and withholding federal money to police departments that fail to report to the Justice Department when no-knock warrants are used.

But Democrats’ failure to even try this shows they were not interested in compromise. Scott says his Democratic colleagues told him “we’re not here to talk about that” and “walked out.” They voted not to even allow debate on his bill, which they knew meant police reform would not happen this year.

(04-27-2021 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  three reasonable police reforms

First, I strongly prefer the word "reasonable" over the emotionally charged but vague "common sense".


#1 I support. #2 and #3 deserve to be looked at.

Interesting that they mention Scott's 2020 bill to reform the police that was stalled by Democrats using the filibuster. Guess they preferred more people die rather than Trump get credit.

Wow... feeling hyperbolic this AM, OO? Maybe they simply didn't like the bill.
Apparently at least one Republican agreed...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/879082580...d-training

Quote:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sounded similar criticism. "The Senate proposal of studies and reporting without transparency and accountability is inadequate," she said in a statement. "The Senate's so-called Justice Act is not action."

Quote:congressional Democrats have already called the GOP plan a "watered-down" approach, arguing that any reform bill needs to address the issue of qualified immunity — the legal protection for police officers that forecloses victims' ability to sue.

Scott acknowledged that the issue of qualified immunity is one where his bill and the Democrats' plan are far apart but said he was open to discussing it.

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., perhaps the lone Republican to support adjusting qualified immunity, says he is planning to offer his own legislation on the topic or may seek to amend Scott's, which he co-sponsored.

"I just think it's important — it's a watershed moment, we ought to do more than window-dress the issue," he said.

Just the facts, ma'am.

At least there is diversity of thought in the GOP.

Since you often claim ignorance of the topic as a shield, here are some facts

So are the "facts" in your linked opinion piece by Mark Thiessen somehow more fact-based than my linked NPR article? Which of the two articles feels more slanted to you?

(04-27-2021 09:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  three reasonable police reforms

First, I strongly prefer the word "reasonable" over the emotionally charged but vague "common sense".


#1 I support. #2 and #3 deserve to be looked at.

Interesting that they mention Scott's 2020 bill to reform the police that was stalled by Democrats using the filibuster. Guess they preferred more people die rather than Trump get credit.

Wow... feeling hyperbolic this AM, OO? Maybe they simply didn't like the bill.
Apparently at least one Republican agreed...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/879082580...d-training

Quote:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sounded similar criticism. "The Senate proposal of studies and reporting without transparency and accountability is inadequate," she said in a statement. "The Senate's so-called Justice Act is not action."

Quote:congressional Democrats have already called the GOP plan a "watered-down" approach, arguing that any reform bill needs to address the issue of qualified immunity — the legal protection for police officers that forecloses victims' ability to sue.

Scott acknowledged that the issue of qualified immunity is one where his bill and the Democrats' plan are far apart but said he was open to discussing it.

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., perhaps the lone Republican to support adjusting qualified immunity, says he is planning to offer his own legislation on the topic or may seek to amend Scott's, which he co-sponsored.

"I just think it's important — it's a watershed moment, we ought to do more than window-dress the issue," he said.

Just the facts, ma'am.

At least there is diversity of thought in the GOP.

Since you often claim ignorance of the topic as a shield, here are some facts

So are the "facts" in your linked opinion piece by Mark Thiessen somehow more fact-based than my linked NPR article? Which of the two articles feels more slanted to you?

I think this is a fact:

But Democrats’ failure to even try this shows they were not interested in compromise. Scott says his Democratic colleagues told him “we’re not here to talk about that” and “walked out.” They voted not to even allow debate on his bill, which they knew meant police reform would not happen this year. That, Scott said, was a tragedy. “We lost — I lost — a vote on a piece of legislation that would have led to systemic change in the relationship between the communities of color and the law enforcement community.”

And of course the irony is that Democrats blocked this bill using the filibuster, which they now claim is a racist Jim Crow rule. The vote to advance to debate was 55-45 in favor.

(04-27-2021 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  three reasonable police reforms

First, I strongly prefer the word "reasonable" over the emotionally charged but vague "common sense".


#1 I support. #2 and #3 deserve to be looked at.

Interesting that they mention Scott's 2020 bill to reform the police that was stalled by Democrats using the filibuster. Guess they preferred more people die rather than Trump get credit.

But..... according to the Democrat powers that be, filibuster is "racist".

(I wonder how they bury the issue on how much they used it during the first two years of Trump.....)

(04-27-2021 10:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  three reasonable police reforms

First, I strongly prefer the word "reasonable" over the emotionally charged but vague "common sense".


#1 I support. #2 and #3 deserve to be looked at.

Interesting that they mention Scott's 2020 bill to reform the police that was stalled by Democrats using the filibuster. Guess they preferred more people die rather than Trump get credit.

But..... according to the Democrat powers that be, filibuster is "racist".

(I wonder how they bury the issue on how much they used it during the first two years of Trump.....)

According to the powers that be NOW. Their principles change with every election. Their principles changed with the two Georgia elections.

(04-27-2021 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  three reasonable police reforms

First, I strongly prefer the word "reasonable" over the emotionally charged but vague "common sense".


#1 I support. #2 and #3 deserve to be looked at.

Interesting that they mention Scott's 2020 bill to reform the police that was stalled by Democrats using the filibuster. Guess they preferred more people die rather than Trump get credit.

Wow... feeling hyperbolic this AM, OO? Maybe they simply didn't like the bill.
Apparently at least one Republican agreed...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/879082580...d-training

Quote:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sounded similar criticism. "The Senate proposal of studies and reporting without transparency and accountability is inadequate," she said in a statement. "The Senate's so-called Justice Act is not action."

Quote:congressional Democrats have already called the GOP plan a "watered-down" approach, arguing that any reform bill needs to address the issue of qualified immunity — the legal protection for police officers that forecloses victims' ability to sue.

Scott acknowledged that the issue of qualified immunity is one where his bill and the Democrats' plan are far apart but said he was open to discussing it.

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., perhaps the lone Republican to support adjusting qualified immunity, says he is planning to offer his own legislation on the topic or may seek to amend Scott's, which he co-sponsored.

"I just think it's important — it's a watershed moment, we ought to do more than window-dress the issue," he said.

Just the facts, ma'am.

At least there is diversity of thought in the GOP.

Since you often claim ignorance of the topic as a shield, here are some facts

What Democrats should be apologizing for was their shameful vote on the Senate floor Wednesday to kill Scott’s legislation — and with it any chance of passing police reform this year. Democrats knew exactly what they were doing. As Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), one of three members of the Democratic caucus who voted to advance the Scott bill, explained, “voting against it will end the discussion of this subject in the Senate for the foreseeable future, and leave us with nothing to show for all the energy and passion that has brought this issue to the forefront of public consciousness.”

He’s right. If Democrats cared about getting something done, they would have allowed the Senate to move forward and sought to amend Scott’s bill on the floor. There was plenty of basis for compromise. Scott’s legislation had already incorporated a number of Democratic proposals, including: making lynching a federal hate crime, creating a national policing commission to conduct a review of the U.S. criminal justice system; collecting data on use of force by police; barring the use of chokeholds by federal officers and withholding federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies that do not similarly bar them; and withholding federal money to police departments that fail to report to the Justice Department when no-knock warrants are used.

But Democrats’ failure to even try this shows they were not interested in compromise. Scott says his Democratic colleagues told him “we’re not here to talk about that” and “walked out.” They voted not to even allow debate on his bill, which they knew meant police reform would not happen this year.

Do you not see the utter irony in the writing the bolded statements in the exact same post?

(04-27-2021 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  three reasonable police reforms

First, I strongly prefer the word "reasonable" over the emotionally charged but vague "common sense".


#1 I support. #2 and #3 deserve to be looked at.

Interesting that they mention Scott's 2020 bill to reform the police that was stalled by Democrats using the filibuster. Guess they preferred more people die rather than Trump get credit.

Wow... feeling hyperbolic this AM, OO? Maybe they simply didn't like the bill.
Apparently at least one Republican agreed...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/879082580...d-training

Quote:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sounded similar criticism. "The Senate proposal of studies and reporting without transparency and accountability is inadequate," she said in a statement. "The Senate's so-called Justice Act is not action."

Quote:congressional Democrats have already called the GOP plan a "watered-down" approach, arguing that any reform bill needs to address the issue of qualified immunity — the legal protection for police officers that forecloses victims' ability to sue.

Scott acknowledged that the issue of qualified immunity is one where his bill and the Democrats' plan are far apart but said he was open to discussing it.

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., perhaps the lone Republican to support adjusting qualified immunity, says he is planning to offer his own legislation on the topic or may seek to amend Scott's, which he co-sponsored.

"I just think it's important — it's a watershed moment, we ought to do more than window-dress the issue," he said.

Just the facts, ma'am.

At least there is diversity of thought in the GOP.

Since you often claim ignorance of the topic as a shield, here are some facts

What Democrats should be apologizing for was their shameful vote on the Senate floor Wednesday to kill Scott’s legislation — and with it any chance of passing police reform this year. Democrats knew exactly what they were doing. As Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), one of three members of the Democratic caucus who voted to advance the Scott bill, explained, “voting against it will end the discussion of this subject in the Senate for the foreseeable future, and leave us with nothing to show for all the energy and passion that has brought this issue to the forefront of public consciousness.”

He’s right. If Democrats cared about getting something done, they would have allowed the Senate to move forward and sought to amend Scott’s bill on the floor. There was plenty of basis for compromise. Scott’s legislation had already incorporated a number of Democratic proposals, including: making lynching a federal hate crime, creating a national policing commission to conduct a review of the U.S. criminal justice system; collecting data on use of force by police; barring the use of chokeholds by federal officers and withholding federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies that do not similarly bar them; and withholding federal money to police departments that fail to report to the Justice Department when no-knock warrants are used.

But Democrats’ failure to even try this shows they were not interested in compromise. Scott says his Democratic colleagues told him “we’re not here to talk about that” and “walked out.” They voted not to even allow debate on his bill, which they knew meant police reform would not happen this year.

Do you not see the utter irony in the writing the bolded statements in the exact same post?

Only Democrats can be hypocrites, Lad. You must have forgotten this during your recent hiatus from The Quad.